Great deal if this was 2018. The good news is this is a good buy for the next 3 years as it will be one of the last revisions for this generation (I expect another in the fall), and then a new redesign next year which means revision 1 - and as we all know, never buy revision 1 anything.
So there will be some mileage on this unit. I have a feeling there won’t be a lot of buyers remorse as the Mac Pro will be slated for a 2020 release and cost the same as a Bugatti.
Dell stocks up and Apple down on this news.
"Dell stocks up and Apple down on this news."
Does that make you feel better or something, or are you simply trolling? Well here's one for you, Dell stock went down after hours today. There! "eyes rolling"
No reason to troll - just pointing out the market didn’t find this announcement exactly engaging.
Apple should have have done this upgrade a year ago. If they aren’t agile enough to stay somewhat relevant- then there’s a problem somewhere... wouldn’t you agree?
Yawn, innovation has left Apple. Just a pricey Intel shill these days. Maybe one of the Wintel vendors will actually innovate. I can’t stand MS services but it’s crap or nothing, Apple no-showed on services. I hate to admit it but all my braying Windroid one-eye mates may have had a point.
Well there 'ya go, another set of hardware worries answered. Folks are going to run out of things to complain about.
Why?
I want to buy a new iMac - my old one is now in its 6th year - but I'm disappointed with this update, as I've been holding out for a proper update for a long time now. I skipped the last one because it was underwhelming, and this continues.
No faceid - or even Touch ID on the wireless keyboard.
No WiFi 6 ( 802.11ax). This isn't in widespread use yet, but it will be soon. On a premium product that will be in use for years? It should be there.
Storage options and pricing is messed up - 5400 RPM disks? In 2019 on a premium product? Apple needs to revisit this area, and the pricing of the SSD options (the upgrade from the 2 TB Fusion drive to 2 TB SSD is 12100 NOK (a bit more than 1400 USD), or 4 times the price of a 2 TB SSD disk from Intel
No HDR on the display
Sure, other improvements could have been made as well - less bezel, more display, and if I'm dreaming Nvidia graphics has been way better than ATI for many years now - but the above should have been addressed.
I guess I'll just have to wait until the next upgrade.
I read all these specs and prices -- and what runs through my mind is that I can get equivalent or better specs at far lower prices on a standard Windows machine.
But then I remember that the iMac comes with Apple's software and ecosystem --- which, while "free" to us is not free to Apple. They charge us for it through their hardware -- which makes their hardware prices seem high.
This has always been the thing. You can get a competing device for most any Apple hardware product and it will have dandy cutting-edge specs and possibly cost less. That’s because the competition is always chasing the bells and whistles and/or low-end market share, but at the cost of compatibility, reliability, security and quality. The cutting-edge specs will lose luster quickly, and oftentimes it just ends up being orphaned legacy ware, because rather than being part of a planned progression of technology development, the bells and whistles are just spaghetti thrown at the wall to see what sticks. OS upgrades for Windows are not free. Microsoft Office is not free. The OS is expected to address an infinite range of hardware, and thus must both be bloatware and also more crash prone, because infinite isn't actually possible. I've tried the other way and the Apple way. I like the Apple way better.
True* -- but there is another factor involved in the cost: Windows machines outsell Macs by over a 10 to 1 ratio. That means that, if they both cost the same to develop and support, on a machine basis, Windows costs less than 1/10th that of a Mac.
* I understand that Windows 10 now provides free upgrades for the life of the machine. In that it is now similar to MacOS.
Hopefully Apple has learned a lesson or two, and will keep these incremental coming at regular, reasonably predictable intervals. Meanwhile, here is a lot to like for many existing and new users.
No there isn't. This iMac is a joke. And this is coming from a huge Apple fan that has not one, but TWO 27" iMacs in his house.
The new model is practically identical in performance to the model that shipped TWO years ago.
I specced a machine because I was looking for a new computer and for 3000 dollar I could be saddled with a Core i5, 8 GB of RAM and a Vega 48 that trades with a 150 dollar RX 590.
Only a blithering moron thinks that's good hardware for the money.
Jesus Christ what a let down. What happened to the new 3800 series? Why not move the Vega 64 or hell, if they're cheap, the 56 down to the iMac space and simply use the Vega 7 for the Pro?
No, instead we're stuck with this nonsense. A fiercely overpriced toy machine for a ridiculous price. I have no idea what I'm going to do now.
Yes, if you only look at the hardware and forget about the Apple software and ecosystem that comes with it -- along with the years of support.
Sure. The software is worth something. it's NOT worth a 100% markup. That monitor is worth 1300 dollars. The rest of the computer, even with the Vega 48 and 16 GB of RAM is hardly worth 700 dollars. Paying a few hundred more for Apple build quality and software? Sure. Paying A THOUSAND more over a 2000 dollar machine, for WORSE performance?
No, that's dumb.
I think what you are pointing out is that the markup Apple applies gets applied to every upgrade from the base configuration. So, in the high end models, the spread keeps on spreading. That is true.
My pet wish was that they would remove the HDD options to make room for the iMac Pro’s dual blower cooler. Even with chips in the same wattage, it would allow more boosts and stay quieter.
As speedbumps go this is entirely fine though. Apart from HDD-only options being criminal.
Edit: No T2, weird.
The T2 is not compatible with traditional hard drives, so the iMac does not have one. Sad that all other Macs have only flash storage options, yet the iMac is still crippled with a spinning hard drive in the standard configurations. Horrible that the 21.5" still has that crippled 5400-RPM drive.
I don't understand the fascination with the thickness of the bezels. It is a desktop machine and the bezels are there for a reason. The larger bezels provide the extra stability in the display for when the machine needs to be cut open for servicing. Thin bezels would place a high risk on cracking the display when trying to slice through the adhesive to open it up as some force is necessary to separate the display from the housing. Yes, I miss the days of the 2009-2011 iMac in which the front glass was held by magnets. Would be nice if the entire display assembly from 2012 onward could also be held by a series of magnets around the frame. If you don't like bezels, then buy a Mac mini and choose whatever display you want.
What an uninspiring update. 2019 and they still keep this dated form factor.
It is a form factor that works. Attach a VESA mount to the back and you have a floating display with a full blown computer, or stick with the base stand. Would you like them to back to the Bondi Blue iMac with a 15" screen and multi-color so you can feel better knowing that the form factor changed? Or how about the white plastic iMac G5?
It is also ridiculous that the same 2TB PCIe flash storage module is $1,000 in a MacBook Pro 15", $1,100 in the iMac 27", and $1,200 in the Mac mini. Even the 1TB flash storage is $700 in the mid-tier iMac 27", but only $500 in the top-tier iMac 27". Their pricing structure is messed up. The flash storage should be the same price across the board. Meanwhile, the 2TB PCIe OWC Aura Pro X flash storage module is $799. The 2TB flash storage jumps to $1,200 in the base model MacBook Pro 15".
My pet wish was that they would remove the HDD options to make room for the iMac Pro’s dual blower cooler. Even with chips in the same wattage, it would allow more boosts and stay quieter.
As speedbumps go this is entirely fine though. Apart from HDD-only options being criminal.
Edit: No T2, weird.
The T2 is not compatible with traditional hard drives, so the iMac does not have one. Sad that all other Macs have only flash storage options, yet the iMac is still crippled with a spinning hard drive in the standard configurations. Horrible that the 21.5" still has that crippled 5400-RPM drive.
It is also ridiculous that the same 2TB PCIe flash storage module is $1,000 in a MacBook Pro 15", $1,100 in the iMac 27", and $1,200 in the Mac mini. Even the 1TB flash storage is $700 in the mid-tier iMac 27", but only $500 in the top-tier iMac 27". Their pricing structure is messed up. The flash storage should be the same price across the board. Meanwhile, the 2TB PCIe OWC Aura Pro X flash storage module is $799. The 2TB flash storage jumps to $1,200 in the base model MacBook Pro 15".
Apple's price is the difference between the 2TB and what was originally in the base model of the machine you choose. If the base model has 512GB, the 2TB upgrade costs less than if it had 256GB originally so the upgrade prices differ per model. That's also why the prices are actually higher than they appear. Apple charges $1000 to go from 512GB to 2TB so you pay $1000 for 1.5TB.
That price isn't too bad, $1000 for 1.5TB is $0.65/GB for premium quality storage. Samsung 960 Pro is ~$0.40/GB, as is the OWC. Apple's prices used to be over $1/GB so things have improved. Still a long way to go though because the price from 128GB to 1TB is $800 so > $0.80/GB when good quality 1TB SSDs are ~$300-400.
That cost makes a difference to the base model of the computer. When they sell the 512GB 15"MBP for $2799, that 512GB is contributing somewhere between $350-400 to the price whereas a HDD in an older pre-SSD model would have contributed $50. The entry 15" MBPs would be better as $2299 (256GB) and $2599 (512GB).
I am looking at the Alienware computer sitting next to my desk with a 6 core i9, two NV linked 2080 Ti GPUs and as much RAM and storage as I want to put into it that cost about the same as that $3349 iMac. Sure, it's not a Mac but if you are developing code or doing graphics work it will get the job done.
Will it run Swift and Xcode?
There's a Swift compiler for Win10 on Github, or perhaps a virtual machine setup would work too.
Go ahead and torture yourself with that. It's like driving around a mountain when there is a tunnel that saves an hour.
Comments
Apple should have have done this upgrade a year ago. If they aren’t agile enough to stay somewhat relevant- then there’s a problem somewhere... wouldn’t you agree?
I want to buy a new iMac - my old one is now in its 6th year - but I'm disappointed with this update, as I've been holding out for a proper update for a long time now. I skipped the last one because it was underwhelming, and this continues.
Sure, other improvements could have been made as well - less bezel, more display, and if I'm dreaming Nvidia graphics has been way better than ATI for many years now - but the above should have been addressed.
I guess I'll just have to wait until the next upgrade.
* I understand that Windows 10 now provides free upgrades for the life of the machine. In that it is now similar to MacOS.
That's also why the prices are actually higher than they appear. Apple charges $1000 to go from 512GB to 2TB so you pay $1000 for 1.5TB.
That price isn't too bad, $1000 for 1.5TB is $0.65/GB for premium quality storage. Samsung 960 Pro is ~$0.40/GB, as is the OWC. Apple's prices used to be over $1/GB so things have improved.
Still a long way to go though because the price from 128GB to 1TB is $800 so > $0.80/GB when good quality 1TB SSDs are ~$300-400.
That cost makes a difference to the base model of the computer. When they sell the 512GB 15"MBP for $2799, that 512GB is contributing somewhere between $350-400 to the price whereas a HDD in an older pre-SSD model would have contributed $50. The entry 15" MBPs would be better as $2299 (256GB) and $2599 (512GB).